Found on Fed-Cure.

Subject: [WLO-ussc] Supreme Court News 06/14/04 (Certiorari)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NEWS 2003-62
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On June 14, 2004 the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari in the the criminal case summarized below:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In this Issue:

(1) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Effect of Judge's Reversal of Decision During
Trial on Defendant's Double Jeopardy Protections)

- - - - - - - -
CERTIORARI GRANTED
- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Smith v. Massachusetts
Certiorari granted: 06/14/04
No. 03-8661
Court below: 788 N.E.2d 977 (Mass. 2003)
Full text:
http://www.masslaw.com/signup/gtwFulltext.cfm?page=ma/opin/coa/1115203.htm

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Effect of Judge's Reversal of Decision During Trial on
Defendant's Double Jeopardy Protections)

The issue in this case is whether a judge's reversal of a ruling on an
issue earlier in the same trial violates the defendant's double jeopardy
protections.

Melvin Smith (Smith) was convicted in a Massachusetts Superior Court of
Assault with intent to commit murder, assault and battery with a dangerous
weapon, and the fourth offense of unlawful possession of a firearm. During
the trial, Smith moved for a required finding of not guilty on the
firearms charge, asserting that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the
Commonwealth) had not introduced sufficient evidence of the weapons'
length and thus illegality. The judge allowed the motion and did not
inform the jury of it. Later the Commonwealth informed the judge of case
law allowing a firearms charge to go to the jury where testimony had
indicated that the firearm was a pistol or revolver. Upon
reconsideration, the judge found that the testimony adequately supported
the charge, reversed the earlier ruling and sent the charge to the jury.
Smith argued that doing so violated double jeopardy, specifically as a
second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal. The
Massachusetts Appeals Court (appeals court) affirmed, ruling that Smith's
double jeopardy protections were not violated. The appeals court found
that double jeopardy protections apply only when the defendant is
subjected to a second proceeding, not, as in this case, when a ruling is
reversed during the course of a single trial and before final judgment is
entered. The appeals court found a longstanding tradition in common law
allowing a judge to reconsider decisions during a proceeding and noted
that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant may not
benefit from an error of law when it could be corrected without subjecting
the defendant to a second proceeding. [Summarized by Dan Engler.]